Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds behavioral meaning by stating the effect ('making all entries available again') and the precondition ('only relevant for tables with replacement=false'). It doesn't discuss permanent changes to table entries or side effects on past rolls, but for a reset operation with idempotentHint=true, the key behavioral facts are sufficiently disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and outcome; the second gives the only relevant condition. Every word earns its place and the content is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter mutation with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description covers the action, the condition of relevance, and the intended effect. It doesn't describe the return value or whether the reset also clears historical results, but those are minor for an idempotent reset operation and no output schema is expected. The sibling list confirms no other roll-table reset tool exists, so the context is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter (tableId) is described as 'Roll table ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond that identifier, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. There is no additional parameter nuance needed since the single parameter's semantics are already clear from schema and context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('drawn results on a roll table'), and distinguishes the tool's scope from possible sibling operations like roll-table-roll or roll-table-update. It also clarifies the only-relevant-when condition (replacement=false), which makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the primary when-to-use condition: resetting drawn results when replacement=false. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the condition 'Only relevant for tables with replacement=false' is a clear usage boundary. A small gap is not identifying the sibling that handles replacement=true behavior (roll-table-roll), but the guidance is still clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.